`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`SISTER E. JONES-BEY,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`PAMELA K. CHEN, MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attor-
`ney General, LETITIA JAMES, LOUIS L. STANTON,
`UNITED STATES, STATE OF NEW YORK,
`ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES,
`NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
`DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, JOSEPHINE
`ANTOINE, GRISEL CABAN, (NFN) ANWANA, (NFN)
`EMMANUEL, DANA LACASSE, BRENDA RAMIREZ,
`BARBARA DANIELY, JAQUELINE D. WILLIAMS,
`ELIZABETH BARNETT, VANESSA WILLIAMS,
`RONNA GORDON-GLACHUS, ANDREA AMOA,
`PAUL M. HENSLEY, JOE MORGANO, DEANNA
`FLAHERTY, KELLI MUSE, ANDREW LEE,
`TIMOTHY MARSH, ABENA DARKEH, ALICIA
`FRISH, MICHAEL MANCILLA, MICHELLE GIGLIO,
`(NFN) TODDMAN, (NFN) GELLINEAU, (NFN)
`QUINTERO, (NFN) EPTISTEIN, SANDRINA
`OSBORN, (NFN) FITZGERALD, (NFN) SANTOS,
`(NFN) FERACEA, (NFN) RUSSELL, (NFN) ROKE,
`(NFN) BECKETT, (NFN) HILDALGO, (NFN)
`ALMONTE, (NFN) SOLOMON, (NFN) CANALES,
`(NFN) SHEA, JOSEPH SCHWARCZ, dba All Year
`Management, NATHAN SCHWARZ, dba All Year
`Management, ENRIQUE ‘RENE’ RIVERA, YOEL
`GOLDMAN, dba All Year Management, VICKNELL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 22-2019 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 11/15/2022
`
`2
`
`
`
`JONES-BEY v. CHEN
`
`POWELL, JANE POWELL, WILLIAM PIERCE,
`SHANTA PIERCE,
`Defendants-Appellees
`______________________
`
`2022-2019
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`Southern District of New York in No. 1:21-cv-06142-LTS,
`Judge Laura Taylor Swain.
`______________________
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`O R D E R
`In response to this court’s August 29, 2022, show cause
`
`order, the United States urges dismissal of this appeal ra-
`ther than transfer. Sister E. Jones-Bey moves for leave to
`proceed in forma pauperis and responds in favor of this
`court’s jurisdiction and consolidation with Appeal No.
`2022-1965*, or, failing that, requests transfer to the Su-
`preme Court of the United States.
`Ms. Jones-Bey’s complaint alleged various claims
`against 57 defendants, including civil rights violations, vi-
`olation of her constitutional rights, and conspiracy. She
`sought injunctive relief and over $250 million in damages.
`On September 17, 2021, the United States District Court
`for the Southern District of New York dismissed the com-
`plaint but allowed Ms. Jones-Bey the opportunity to re-
`plead certain claims. Ms. Jones-Bey appealed to the
`United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
`
`
`* Appeal No. 2022-1965 was transferred on October
`18, 2022, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sec-
`ond Circuit.
`
`
`
`Case: 22-2019 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 11/15/2022
`
`JONES-BEY v. CHEN
`
` 3
`
`
`
`which dismissed. Following the Second Circuit’s mandate,
`the district court entered final judgment dismissing the
`case after Ms. Jones-Bey failed to timely file an amended
`complaint. This appeal followed.
`
`Although this court possesses jurisdiction to review
`certain decisions of federal district courts, that jurisdiction
`is limited in a way that applies here: this court has juris-
`diction only over cases arising under the patent laws, see
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); civil actions on review to the district
`court from the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
`see § 1295(a)(4)(C); or certain damages claims against the
`United States “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28
`U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C.§ 1295(a)(2). Ms. Jones-
`Bey’s case falls outside of that limited jurisdiction.
`Although the government urges dismissal, we deem it
`the better course to transfer for the appropriate court to
`consider the issues raised in this appeal. That court would
`be the Second Circuit, not the Supreme Court. See 28
`U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.
`Accordingly,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`The appeal and all its filings are transferred to the
`United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit pur-
`suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
`
`
`
`November 15, 2022
` Date
`
`
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
